[Mailman-Users] Multiple Servers for a List?

[Jon Carnes]

If you are running two separate systems then you don't want to copy the
follow directories under ~mailman/:
  data   - where moderated messages are held
  locks  - where the locking files are created
  logs   - the local logs for the running Mailman system
  qfiles - queued up messages waiting to go out

The files in each of those directories will be used specifically for
messages that are being processed by the local Mailman system. 

You'll need a local web-site for each install so the moderated messages
can be handled.

To make things simpler, you could limit users (and admins) to modify the
list databases on only one of the two (or more) servers

You could could point all website directions to that one server (and
only one of the servers) and you could direct the <listname>-request
emails to that same server, and then let both servers field mail to the
lists.

Then you would simply have to do a one-way sync of the ~mailman/lists
directory from that one server out to your mirrors.  If you wanted the
archives as well, then you would have to sync the ~mailman/archives
directory as well.

Take care - Jon Carnes 

On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 18:31, David Richards wrote:
> Not so much of performance that will be a problem, but more of a
> availability issue.  Yes, would be fun to try...
> 
> How about Ian's original idea, about keeping certain directories in sync?? 
> Which directories would that have to be, and can a straight 'cp -R' acheive
> the syncing??
> 
> Dave.
> 
> 
> > I would worry about locking on the databases.  Mailman handles
> > this via a lock file in a common directory, so it should work
> > even in active-active, but you would still only have one mailman
> > process able to run on a list at one time.  In other words, I
> > don't think you would get much better performance out of the dual
> > system since only one at time would have access to the list
> > databases. 
> > It would be fun to try it out!
> > 
> > On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 00:17, David Richards wrote:
> > > How about ACTIVE-ACTIVE sharing the same installation via an
> > NFS mount (or > possibly shared storage in a cluster)?
> > > 
> > > D.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Dave Richards
> Project Manager (Messaging)
> Information Technology Services
> Queensland University of Technology